The Last Free American

In an interview in this week's LA Weekly, Gore Vidal speaks out about the current administration and the state of American Democracy.

http://www.laweekly.com/ink/03/52/features-cooper.php

so?

soooo.... he's the last free american!

Good question


"HE MIGHT BE AMERICA'S LAST small-r republican. Gore Vidal, now 76, has made a lifetime out of critiquing America's imperial impulses and has -- through two dozen novels and hundreds of essays -- argued tempestuously that the U.S. should retreat back to its more Jeffersonian roots, that it should stop meddling in the affairs of other nations and the private affairs of its own citizens. "

If we did that we could safely say fuck the other people and be the isolationists we should be and that eveyone here thinks we should be since we all think we shouldn't get involved. well unless it's a cause they believe in, but not the causes others believe in. I mean we all know you and me and them are right until we disagree.

It's amazing how someone can say "We did something wrong by ignoring these people" while claiming "we did something wrong for invoilving ourselves in another country"

I mean let's face it, it's a pick and choose thing for most people

[Edited on Nov 16, 2003 by Troll]

The problem merely arises due to the lack of a balance of power.

The United States is the one remaining Superpower and rules unilaterally.

This is a problem -- creates problems.

Coming out of the second world war, we had the soviets and we had the americans.

That maintained some sort of order, however chaotic and flimsy it may have been.

Now though, we have the Americans and we have everyone else who are either "with [them] or against [them]" right? Americans versus everyone else. See where this is going?

My fear isn't so much that Iraq will turn into another Vietnam, but that it will turn into another Rhineland. "Why didn't we do something sooner?" people will ask themselves. Or will they?

Nuclear weapons now occupy the position of deterring politics, once held through power and WWF type speak, now held by existence alone.

The hyrdogen bomb: history's exclamation point!



[Edited on Nov 16, 2003 by hal]

Nukes had the power between the US and former USSR. That was the balance of power, yes. Now nukes aren't an issue of power like they were for almost 50 years. Russia and the US both want to cut back on the stockpile. Now the nuke threat is one of "what psycho is going to have control of one and how will they use it". It's fear even the Russians share with us. Now maybe that is due to how the russians and americans acted when they were primarilly the ones with the nukes. Good chance that is true since most would like to get their hands on one to use against either of us.

We already ask why we didn't do something sooner, as in when we were there the first time and had the chance to do so. Now that we are doing something, we still get the same amount of crap just from different sides. The only thing that has changed from 12 years ago is who it is that is compalining.

You miss the angle I'm coming from.

Iraq = Rhineland

"Why didn't we do something sooner?"

Who's talking?


And yes, the arms race is over. We now know it's not a matter of "more nukes," but of nukes period. There very existence maintains some sort of balance, however skewed that may still be.

I'm not sure I missed it. I didn mention people wondering why we didn't do something the first time, when we had a chance as opposed to waiting 12 years and going back. That's pretty much the same scenario but without the already being there the first time.

As for nukes, now it is a slightly different story. The two guys with the big sticks want to talk and get rid of them and keep power in check through other means. So the symbolism of nukes is rather diminished as a power struggle. The fear now is a somewhat retrospective look at "what we created" and a fear that someone else will learn from our stupidity and pick up a stick of their own to use against either of us or both of us

And we do that by voting. But there's no guarantee the guy you vote for will send troops where you want them to go and not where you don't want them to go.
*edited for the following addition*
Even then we still never get involved in some places because of established policy or protocols in dealing with them. China has been pretty much on the human rights violations list for most of the century. Even when they have our people being held, we do little more than the usual to get them back and it works.

I'm just asking out of curiousity and nothing more, but are there countries you'd like to see us take a stance against for some reason and how far would you want to see the stance taken to get what you want out of it for those people?

*edited again because I keep forgetting this part*

Yes it should be pick and choose for ourselves. That's a part of voting after learning about the guy's foriegn policy stance. Nothing against that at all. But chances are I may pick differently than you. would that warrant getting my ass chewed? Not that you have or would. I'm not specualting on you or anyone in particular

*so of a bitch I keep thinking of more stuff*

Lorelei, is this reply along the lines of what you were thinking or were you saying something more about having a greater say in our own policies outside of going straight through elected officials? Like maybe they should listen to the public that voted their asses into power?
[Edited on Nov 16, 2003 by Troll]

[Edited on Nov 16, 2003 by Troll]

[Edited on Nov 16, 2003 by Troll]

With all due respect, I think you did miss the point that was being made.

The invasion of the Rhineland was Germany's first expansionist move on the way to invading other countries ( Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, etc)

If Iraq = Rhineland, Then Germany = U.S.A.

At least that's how I interpreted the equation.

Really?

I thought it was our lack of doing something when they did that Hal was talking about. I'll reserve saying i was wrong until Hal verifies my need to do so.

Who are we, after all, to conclude that the Iraqis don't quite like being tortured by their own leaders? As the anti-Bush writer Gore Vidal said on Australian radio recently when asked about their plight under Saddam: 'Don't you think that's their problem? That's not your problem and that's not my problem. There are many bad regimes on Earth, we can list several hundred... at the moment I would put the Bush regime as one of them.'

I knew it wouldn't be long before the inevitable correlation between the Big Satan and Nazi Germany was established...
and it is as ignorant asinine and repulsive as I expected it to be.

Can't disagree with that.

I read Julian recently. Great book. Not sure how it pertains to American politics though, unless Vidal is advocating wiping out Christianity. Come to think of it, not such a bad idea...

But Islam is of course out of the question, and I'd be a bastard for even suggesting such a thing, wouldn't I?

Hell, as far as I'm concerned we'd be better off without any religions at all.

And I'd be all in favor of wiping out Islam as a religion as long as no people were killed or injured in the process. Given the infinitely small likelihood of that happening, it would most likely be viewed as some sort of victory for Christianity, and that would just make Pat Robertson more annoying. So I'll say we should wipe out all religions. Even Buddhism.

meh.

[Edited on Nov 16, 2003 by Keith]

[Edited on Nov 16, 2003 by Keith]

I've got my fully-automatic submachine guns with armor-piercing bullets, and a copy of Hustler! I'm free too!

I guess we should be happy that he lives here full time now? At least he is living in LA - not even the rest of California goes to or care what happens there.

Ever been to LA?

Yes, I have been there plenty. I used to live in California. Your point was?

My point is that I've lived in Florida, and it sure ain't heaven.

There are strong similarities, though, as a character, I think Bush is more of a Napoleon than a Hitler. The notion of relating Germany-then to the US-now is not a value judgement, it's a concern. The concern is that it seems the United States are alienating themselves from every other oraganized national or international political body that they are not themselves directly heading or strictly allied with, and that one day a war will be fought as consequence. This is the concern. This is all.

Nationalism can get a lot done.


[Edited on Nov 17, 2003 by hal]